A History Of US Defense Spending Since FDR; And Where Obama And Romney Differ

Tyler Durden's picture

Presented with little comment, via Bloomberg Insider's Convention 2012 Issue; the history of military spending (which we discussed recently) and the $400bn divide between Obama and Romney's agenda.


Source: Bloomberg


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GetZeeGold's picture



Where Obama And Romney Differ


Could start with the whole Marxist vs Capitalist thingy.


.....and I'm pretty sure that comment is gonna piss off just about everyone.


i-dog's picture

I'm wondering how anybody could believe any estimate given by either of them!?!

Dumb fucking sheep!

malikai's picture

What strikes me is how could we have spent 11.6% during the Korean war? Well, on second thought, maybe is was all that money we spent on the nuclear program making all those cool videos of south pacific islands being vaporized.

Sean7k's picture

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP is one of the most useless statistics for measuring defense spending or any spending. One, it doesn't reference the increase in the money supply, it doesn't offset the growth in government spending, it doesn't include intelligence agencies, there is a laundry list of items that would skew the percentage much higher- especially if we calculated GDP properly- minue government spending!

Obama nor Romney are not in charge of spending- the CONGRESS is. They are in charge of starting and maintaining undeclared, unconstitutional wars for the benefit of murdering our children and the world's people. While industrialists and corporations use the huge profits to offset any increase in tax obligations. 

I really hate this kind of crap.

AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Agreed on the meaninglessness of GDP in determining what "defense" spending "should" be.

The embedded graphic also excludes "war funding" from the "defense" budget. Have not checked to see when the USG started doing this but it could mess up historical comparisons.  This graphic shows them both.

FeralSerf's picture

It doesn't appear to exclude war funding during the 1941-45 period.  Maybe they're trying to compare the apples with the 5.56X45s.  (Oranges are at least a fruit.)  There's nothing like a raft of bullshit nonsense to start the day, eh?

Buzz Fuzzel's picture

You've not been paying close enough attention.  The current occupant of the White House has been spending money without authorization from CONGRESS for quite some time.  The most recent example is work for wellfare which he unilaterally is ignoring.  Our real problem is that our CONGRESS does not have the balls to do anything about it.

AldousHuxley's picture

CONGRESS has lower approval rating than white house


CONGRESS hold the purse strings.


CONGRESS passed bank bailouts.


any questions?

Buzz Fuzzel's picture

Like I said CONGRESS does not have the balls to do anything about it.  What we need is a good old fashioned Coup d'etat.  What we are likely  to get is a French Revolution since we have not Washingtons, Adams or Jeffersons in our current political leadership.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Those weren't nukes, it was Jon Corzine.

DaveyJones's picture

is the phrase "4% GDP growth" an oxymoron or just an oxymormon?

Xibalba's picture

Capitalism died long ago.  You didn't get the memo?  The choices bfore you are:



a) The devil you know

b) The devil you know, but white. 

FL_Conservative's picture

Sorry, but I don't know what race has to do with this choice.  That's not even in the equation, as far as I'm concerned.  Neither choice is what I want, but race will have nothing to do with my decision.

GetZeeGold's picture



You brought it up.....you must be a racist!!!


I sentence you to 3 years of watching Chris Matthews....you then have to translate the slurred words to the chalkboard.


FL_Conservative's picture

Ole "wiffle ball" will be out of the cable business soon enough.

AldousHuxley's picture

the choice is the devil you know (white)....or the devil you know (half white)

still whites win.

JimBowie1958's picture

Can he step in front of  tractor trailer doing 80 mph instead?

It would be more merciful.

11b40's picture

Maybe not your vote, FL Conservative, but to deny racism is running very deep in this election means you are either lying or really, really stupid.

FL_Conservative's picture

Hey GetZeeGold, here's that racist comment you were looking for!

WhiteNight123129's picture

You did not get it, there is actually no difference, just like a lemon, why do you care if the car is blue or grey, the car is a lemon anyway.

FL_Conservative's picture

You're wrong.  I "get it" very well.  Voters can choose between the crony that will pander to labor unions and the TBTF financials, or the crony that will do the bidding of the GOP establishment.  IMO the only difference is that the economy will improve more under the latter.  In either case, liberty and personal freedom will get the shaft.

Totentänzerlied's picture

"the economy will improve more under the latter."

Perhaps you meant to say "decline less", regardless, it is hairsplitting - a "brain cancer or heart cancer" type of choice.

11b40's picture

Too funny.  You actually think Romney isn't butt buddies with the too big to fail bankers?

Here is a suggestion.  Check out this breaking news from Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, then get back to us.


AldousHuxley's picture

Romney has 2 objectives....

1) derail little reform of Dodd Frank for good of wall st. (he is from private equity background)

2) get in more debt for war in Iran as welfare for oil  and military industrial complex (republican bread and butter)


He doesn't give a shit for you.

monad's picture

Adolf Hitler would have loved Mormon. It is consistent with his beliefs and pogroms. Its as if Odessa switched tactics and infiltrated America... nah. Winston Churchill sure did flip though.

Gott Mit RMONEY 2052


Andre's picture

Race has one effect-

One has more teflon than the other.

TrulyStupid's picture

Capitalism is alive and well, unfortunately it is not free enterprise capitalism but corporate monopolism, crony capitalism and welfare statism. Spending on "defense" is social malinvestment of the worst sort, it produces negative returns and gaurantees increasing and eventually unsustainable debt. Whether we go to hell in a blue or red handbasket is really irrelevant.

AldousHuxley's picture

you know what they call that kind of capitalism when it is done in Europe????




yup, US is  a fascist country.

Ghordius's picture

Without wanting to make an argument for or against your comment,
Fascism in europe was gov slapping corporations in gov's ranks, according one party's plans.

What you are describing is corporations steering gov's course throgh campaign contributions and lobbyism.

How about Plutocracy?

Plenty of historic examples for that, including classic "democratic" Athens in it's imperial phase.

Plutocracy: the Rule of Finance/Money.

john39's picture

how can anyone believe there is any practical difference between the two?

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Well, one of them wasn't groomed by Soviet Communists for 20+ years to be installed as President in order to undermine and collapse the United States of America.


This is NOT an endorsement of Mitt Romney.

walküre's picture

George Soros is a big Obama supporter. How does that compute with the "Soviet Communist" thingy?

Banks have been the biggest WINNERS of the current administration. I didn't read that in the MANIFEST anywhere.

Obama must have studied a different MANIFEST if he really did.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Wall Street bankers financed the Russian Revolution-- it's fairly well documented. You obviously don't know much about the connection between the One World banking elite and communism.

UGrev's picture

The enemy of my enemy.

Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Socialism is all about spending other peoples money.  Every Marxist dictator worth his/her salt has a Swiss bank account.

glenlloyd's picture

Makes little difference which one is captain of the ship, one way or another it will run aground and the response we'll get once again is 'who could have predicted it?'

It really smells like we're back in the 2008 election again.

Further...anyone who buys that tripe about Romney 'fixing' anything is wasting their time. It'll be new 'hope and change' but it will never come.

merizobeach's picture

I think it smells a bit like 2004..

zerozulu's picture

It does not matter who is the captain of this ship. Some one else set it on auto cruise to the destination demise.

LMAOLORI's picture



Doesn't piss me off it's funny but also true since entitlement spending surpassed defense spending in 1974 .

If it pisses people off it's just because they don't really understand that Marxist's whine about defense spending but do plenty of it themselve's just in a different way it's then called the people's army.

TrulyStupid's picture

There is a diffference in the impact of defense vs entitlement spending.

Firstly, if the entitlements are funded by exsiting or increased taxation, the budget is balanced and the money pushed down to the bottom of the economic pyramid and filters back upwards... priming the pump. Whens defense spending, a lot of which is spent overseas and written off on unproductive enterprises, is not funded (by increased tax revenues) the deficit balloons. When military spending is put on steroids and simultaneously taxes are cut.. as has been the trend since 2001... the deficit balloons, interest rates are manipulated downward, real productivity drops and bankruptcy looms.

Both parties are on the same train and no amount of red herring bullshit can alter the economic consequences of the accumulated debt.

surf0766's picture

Anti-colonial marxist theology  vs capitalism

11b40's picture

Which one is the Capitalist?

DaveyJones's picture

clearly the one who wins the house on the capitol

DaveyJones's picture

curious on the military spending and tax rates of any falling empire. Bet they go in one direction

monad's picture

The diff is the waffle pattern they make on your face. 

Dr. Engali's picture

Hey Tyler here is one for you. CNBC claims that China not Wallstreet caused the financial crisis.



Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Those damn irresponsible Chinese savers are to blame. A pox on their house.

So............when do we leave the brown skins alone and start bombing the yellow skins?

<Ya gotta read the entire (short) article. It is hilarious.>


The study from the Erasmus Research Institute of Management says the saving frenzy of the Chinese created the cheap money, which fueled the U.S. housing bubble and its collapse.

Spastica Rex's picture

Uhm, why would we do that? Wouldn't they fight back?